Chapter 5 Protection of Commercially-exploited Fish Species Under CITES

Japan, ‘Kesennuma Declaration regarding Sustainable Utilization of Shark Resources and Tuna Longline Fishing’ (11 July 2003), as presented in Japan, ‘AC19 Doc. 18.3 – Biological and trade status of sharks (Resolution Conf. 12.6 and Decision 12.47) – Progress made by Japan in developing and implementing the IPOA-Sharks’ (18 August 2003) annex 2.

P. Thomas, ‘Mushrooms and the Future of CITES’ (2005) 30 Endangered Species Bulletin http://​www.​fws.​gov/​endangered/​bulletin/​2005/​ESB09-05.​pdf accessed 6 July 2015, 24, 25; CITES, ‘CoP8 Doc. 8.46 (Rev) – Consideration of proposals for amendment of Appendices I and II’ (2–13 March 1992) annex 4, 41; China, ‘CoP14 Inf. 45 – Shark Issues’ (3–15 June 2007) 2. On this, see for example M. A. Young, Trading Fish, Saving Fish: The Interaction between Regimes and International Law (Cambridge Studies in International and Comparative Law, Cambridge University Press 2011) 141–142.

FAO, ‘Report of the Expert Consultation on Legal Issues Associated to CITES and Commercially-exploited Aquatic Species (22–25 June 2004)’ FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Report 746 (Rome 2004) 2–3 §13 and 10 §47.

Japan would have desired a clear statement, within CITES, that the FAO and RFMOs are the appropriate bodies to deal with fisheries (Japan, ‘CoP12 Doc. 16.2.1 – Synergy and Cooperation between CITES and FAO’ (3–15 November 2002) annex).

China, ‘CoP12 Inf. 30 – “Sharks” and COP12 – A Case for Caution’ (3–15 November 2002) 2 §1; A. C. J. Vincent and others, ‘The role of CITES in the conservation of marine fishes subject to international trade’ (2014) 15 Fish and Fisheries 563, 563.

FAO, ‘Report of the Expert Consultation on Legal Issues’ (n 4) 6 §28, 7 §31–33; M. A. Young, ‘Protecting Endangered Marine Species: Collaboration Between the Food and Agriculture Organization and the CITES Regime’ (2010) 11 Melbourne Journal of International Law 1, 13–14.

C. L. Krieps, ‘Sustainable use of endangered species under CITES: is it a sustainable alternatives’ (1996) 17 University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law 461, 498.

M. J. Hickey, ‘Acceptance of sustainable use within the CITES community’ (1998–1999) 23 Vermont Law Review 861, 873 (citation omitted).

M. Bowman, ‘A Tale of Two CITES: Divergent Perspectives upon the Effectiveness of the Wildlife Trade Convention’ (2013) 22 RECIEL 228, 236.

Ibid.

S. Young, ‘Contemporary Issues of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and the Debate Over Sustainable Use’ (2003) 14 Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy 167, 171–172.

Resolution Conf. 1.2 – Criteria for the Deletion of Species and Other Taxa from Appendices I and II (Bern criteria) 1976 (repealed).

Young, ‘Contemporary Issues’ (n 14) 172 (reference omitted).

D. S. Favre, ‘Debate within the CITES Community: What Direction for the Future?’ (1993) 33 Natural Resources Journal 875, 883.

P. H. Sand, ‘Whither CITES? The Evolution of a Treaty Regime in the Borderland of Trade and Environment’ (1997) 8 European Journal of International Law 29, 46.

M. Bowman, P. Davies and C. Redgwell, Lyster’s International Wildlife Law (2^nd edn Cambridge University Press 2010) 492.

Hickey (n 10) 874; K. Eldridge, ‘Whale For Sale?: New Developments in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora’ (1994–1995) 24 Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law 549, 563.

Eldridge (n 20) 560–561.

Hickey (n 10) 862 (references omitted).

Resolution Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP16) – Criteria for amendment of Appendices I and II (Resolution Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP16) – Lauderdale criteria) 1994 annex 4; on the listing criteria’s adequacy for fish species, see infra Chapter 5 C. I.

Resolution Conf. 3.15 – Ranching 1981 (repealed); currently Resolution Conf. 11.16 (Rev. CoP15) – Ranching and trade in ranched specimens of species transferred from Appendix I to Appendix II 2000.

Sand, ‘Whither CITES? The Evolution of a Treaty Regime in the Borderland of Trade and Environment’ (n 18) 41–42.

CITES Resolution Conf. 8.3 (Rev. CoP13) – Recognition of the benefits of trade in wildlife 1992 preamble and operative part.

Resolution Conf. 13.2 (Rev. CoP14) – Sustainable use of biodiversity: Addis Ababa Principles and Guidelines 2004.

Bowman, Davies and Redgwell (n 19) 497–498; Garrison (n 13) 305.

Krieps (n 9) 481–482.

Garrison (n 13) 325.

Krieps (n 9) 477.

Swanson (n 32) 150.

R. Cooney and M. Abensperg-Traun, ‘Raising Local Community Voices: CITES, Livelihoods and Sustainable Use’ (2013) 22 RECIEL 301, 302; Krieps (n 9) 477; Swanson (n 32) 141; Young, ‘Contemporary Issues’ (n 14) 184.

Hickey (n 10) 871–872; Krieps (n 9) 483–484.

Bowman, Davies and Redgwell (n 19) 483; Sand, ‘Whither CITES? The Evolution of a Treaty Regime in the Borderland of Trade and Environment’ (n 18) 30.

P. Birnie, A. Boyle and C. Redgwell, International Law and the Environment (3^rd edn Oxford University Press 2009) 689; S. Dansky, ‘The CITES “Objective” Listing Criteria: Are They Objective Enough to Protect the African Elephant?’ (1999) 73 Tulane Law Review 961, 970–971; Young, ‘Contemporary Issues’ (n 14) 176. To mark their point, some African countries submitted in 1992 a proposal to list red-herring, a species of great commercial importance for some northern countries. The proposal was later withdrawn (Vincent and others (n 6) 569).

C. P. Carlarne, ‘Saving the Whales in the New Millennium: International Institutions, Recent Developments and the Future of International Whaling Policies’ (2005–2006) 24 Virginia Environmental Law Journal 1, 42; E. J. Molenaar, ‘Marine Mammals: The Role of Ethics and Ecosystem Considerations’ (2003) 6 Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy 31, 33–34. See for example A. D’Amato and S. K. Chopra, ‘Whales: Their Emerging Right to Life’ (1991) 85 American Journal of International Law 21.

Hickey (n 10) 869.

Favre, ‘Debate within the CITES Community: What Direction for the Future?’ (n 17) 890.

Ibid. 912–913; Young, ‘Contemporary Issues’ (n 14) 185.

Young, ‘Contemporary Issues’ (n 14) 185.

A. Wiersema, ‘Uncertainty and Markets for Endangered Species under CITES’ (2013) 22 RECIEL 239, 246.

M. J. Glennon, ‘Has International Law Failed the Elephant?’ (1990) 84 The American Journal of International Law 1, 27.

Wiersema, ‘Uncertainty and Markets for Endangered Species under CITES’ (n 45) 246.

Stoett (n 8) 571.

S. J. Keller, ‘Is the International Ban on the Importation of Ivory Saving the African Elephant?’ (1992) 3 Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy 381, 383, 391–392; T. Mulliken, ‘The Role of CITES in Controlling the International Trade in Forest Products: Implications for Sustainable Forest Management’ Non-Wood Forest Products Working Documents 7 (Rome 2009) 30.

For orchids for example, see Mulliken (n 49) 24–26.

Krieps (n 9) 486–488.

Committee on Fisheries – Sub-Committee on Fish Trade, ‘Report of the Eighth Session of the Sub-Committee on Fish Trade (Bremen, 12–16 February 2002)’ FAO Fisheries Report 673 (Rome 2002) 7 §16; FAO, ‘Report of the Expert Consultation on Legal Issues’ (n 4) 7 §31.

Bowman, ‘A Tale of Two CITES: Divergent Perspectives upon the Effectiveness of the Wildlife Trade Convention’ (n 11) 237.

See infra Chapter 5 C. II.

Vincent and others (n 6) 567; C. Wold and E. Thorson, ‘The Application of CITES to Atlantic Bluefin Tuna and Other Marine Species’ (International Environmental Law Project 2010) 2.

Resolution Conf. 16.3 – CITES Strategic Vision: 2008–2020 2013 (italics added).

Thomas (n 3) 24; International Institute for Sustainable Development, ‘Earth Negotiations Bulletin – Summary of the Twelfth Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora’ (18 November 2002) http://​www.​iisd.​ca/​vol21/​enb2130e.​html accessed 5 July 2015.

CITES (n 55) article I(e) (italics added).

As presented in E. Franckx, ‘The Relationship between CITES, FAO and Related Agreements: Legal Issues’ FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular 1062 (Rome 2011) 21–22.

CITES’ travaux préparatoires, Proposed Amendments to the Working Paper (Doc. 3) (Submitted by the delegation of Japan) (Doc PA/Gen/1, 17 February 1973) 1, as presented in E. Franckx, ‘The Exercise of Jurisdiction over Vessels: Legal Issues Raised by the Relationship Between CITES, FAO and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea’ in E. Franckx and P. Gautier (eds), The Exercise of Jurisdiction over Vessels: New Developments in the Fields of Pollution, Fisheries, Crimes at Sea and Trafficking of Weapons of Mass Destruction (Bruylant 2010) 67 n 61.

E. Franckx and K. van den Bosche, ‘The Influence of Environmental Law on the Development of the Law of the Sea: CITES and the International Law of Fisheries’ (2011) 54 Japanese Yearbook of International Law 218, 241.

Franckx, ‘The Relationship between CITES, FAO and Related Agreements: Legal Issues’ (n 60) 22, 48–49.

For more on article XIV, see infra Chapter 5 B. III.

Franckx, ‘The Exercise of Jurisdiction over Vessels: Legal Issues Raised by the Relationship Between CITES, FAO and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea’ (n 61) 68 (reference omitted), presenting the travaux préparatoires.

Resolution Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP16) – Lauderdale criteria (n 23) tenth preambular; Resolution Conf. 14.6 (Rev. CoP16) – Introduction from the Sea 2007 ninth preambular.

Respectively Resolution Conf. 11.4 (Rev. CoP12) – Conservation of cetaceans, trade in cetacean specimens and the relationship with the International Whaling Commission 2000; Resolution Conf. 12.4 – Cooperation between CITES and the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources regarding trade in toothfish 2002; and Resolution Conf. 14.6 (Rev. CoP16) – Introduction from the Sea (n 66).

Resolution Conf. 12.6 (Rev. CoP16) – Conservation and management of sharks (Class Chondrichthyes) 2002; Resolution Conf. 12.4 – Cooperation between CITES and the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources regarding trade in toothfish (n 67).

See supra Chapter 3 C. I. 2. f).

CITES, ‘CoP8 Doc. 8.46 (Rev) – Consideration of proposals for amendment of Appendices I and II’ (n 3) annex 3, 30.

The functions of the Secretariat include “to invite the attention of the Parties to any matter pertaining to the aims of the present Convention; […] to make recommendations for the implementation of the aims and provisions of the present Convention” (CITES (n 55) article XII(2)(e) and (h)) and to gather advice from various actors, transmit relevant information and make its own recommendations regarding amendments of the Appendices (CITES (n 55) article XV(1)(a) and (2)(b)–(e)).

CITES (n 55) second preambular; Wold and Thorson (n 56) 3.

CITES (n 55) fourth preambular.

See infra Chapter 5 B. III. 1. a).

Vincent and others (n 6) 568 (brackets omitted).

CITES, Bluefin tuna main course of CITES world conference: 175 Governments will also discuss urgent measures to tackle illegal wildlife trade and protect the livelihoods of the rural poor (5 February 2010) http://​www.​cites.​org/​eng/​news/​pr/​2010/​20100205_​cop15.​shtml accessed 6 July 2015; D. S. Calley, Market Denial and International Fisheries Regulation: The Targeted and Effective Use of Trade Measures Against the Flag of Convenience Fishing Industry (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2012) 173.

Amendments to Appendices I and II of the Convention adopted by the Conference of the Parties at its first meeting 1976.

Amendments to Appendices I and II of the Convention adopted by the Conference of the Parties at its second meeting 1979.

Amendments to Appendices I and II of the Convention adopted by the Conference of the Parties at its fourth meeting 1983; M. Arbour and S. Lavallée, Droit international de l’environnement (Bruylant 2006) 410. On the relation with the IWC see infra Chapter 6 A. II. 2. b) cc), C. IV. 1, D. IV. 1.

CITES, ‘Reservations entered by Parties updated on 5 June 2015’ (2013) http://​www.​cites.​org/​eng/​app/​reserve.​php accessed 6 July 2015; S. Andresen, ‘The International Whaling Regime: Order at the Turn of the Century’ in D. Vidas and W. Ostreng (eds), Order for the oceans at the turn of the century (Kluwer Law International 1999) 220.

CITES Secretariat, ‘A brief history of sturgeons & CITES’ CITES World – Official Newsletter of the Parties (December 2001) 12.

Resolution Conf. 12.8 (Rev. CoP13) – Review of Significant Trade in specimens of Appendix-II species 2002 operative part.

Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP16) – Conservation of and trade in sturgeons and paddlefish 2002.

Ibid.

Ibid.

Amendments to Appendices I and II of the Convention adopted by the Conference of the Parties at its 16^th meeting, Bangkok (Thailand), 3–14 March 2013; CITES, CITES getting ready for sharks and rays (2013) http://​www.​cites.​org/​eng/​news/​pr/​2013/​20130914_​shark_​ray.​php accessed 5 July 2015; J. E. Scanlon, ‘CITES at Its Best: CoP16 as a ‘Watershed Moment’ for the World’s Wildlife’ (2013) 22 RECIEL 222, 222.

Scanlon, ‘CITES at Its Best: CoP16 as a ‘Watershed Moment’ for the World’s Wildlife’ (n 87) 223.

Resolution Conf. 9.17 – Status of International Trade in Shark Species 1994 (repealed).

Franckx, ‘The Exercise of Jurisdiction over Vessels: Legal Issues Raised by the Relationship Between CITES, FAO and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea’ (n 61) 69; CITES, ‘CoP8 Doc. 8.46 (Rev) – Consideration of proposals for amendment of Appendices I and II’ (n 3) annex 3, 30.

S. Lieberman, ‘Science versus Politics: Tales from CITES’ (Elisabeth Mann Borgese Lecture, 2010) http://​internationaloce​aninstitute.​dal.​ca/​EMBlecturetext_​2010.​pdf accessed 5 July 2015, 5.

“Those who spoke in support of the proposal were the EU (although they introduced a confusing compromise proposal), US, Norway, and Kenya. Those who spoke in opposition were Canada, Indonesia, UAE, Venezuela, Chile, Japan, South Korea, Grenada, Senegal, Namibia, Turkey, Iceland, Morocco, Tunisia, and Libya” (ibid. 7).

Monaco, ‘CoP15 Prop. 19 – Proposal to include Atlantic Bluefin Tuna (Thunnus thynnus (Linnaeus, 1758)) on Appendix I of CITES in accordance with Article II 1 of the Convention’ (13–25 March 2010) summary 1–2 §5–9; Monaco, ‘CoP15 Inf. 12 – Supplementary information on the proposal to include Atlantic Bluefin Tuna (Thunnus Thynnus Linnaeus 1758) on Appendix I of CITES in accordance with article II 1 of the Convention’ (13–25 March 2010). It is true that the FAO Expert Panel could not reach consensus on the need for a listing but this was due to the opposition of only one member.

Monaco, ‘CoP15 Prop. 19 – Proposal to include Atlantic Bluefin Tuna’ (n 93).

CITES, ‘CoP15 Com. I Rec. 8 (Rev. 1) – Summary record of the eighth session of Committee I’ (13–25 March 2010) 2–3 in particular Canada, Japan, Venezuela, Chile, Grenada, Indonesia and Tunisia.

New measures as presented by F. Hazin, (Chairman of ICCAT), ‘CoP15 Inf. 63 – ICCAT Statement Bluefin Tuna’ (18 March 2010) 2; CITES, ‘CoP15 Com. I Rec. 8 (Rev. 1) – Summary record of the eighth session of Committee I’ (n 95) 2–3 in particular Spain for the EU, Canada, Republic of Korea and Senegal.

FAO, ‘CoP15 Inf. 26 – Statement from the FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department on CoP15 Proposal 19 to List the Atlantic Bluefin Tuna in Appendix I’ (13–25 March 2010) annex §11.

D. G. Webster, ‘The irony and the exclusivity of Atlantic bluefin tuna management’ (2011) 35 Marine Policy 249, 249.

Japan, ‘CoP12 Doc. 16.2.1 – Synergy and Cooperation between CITES and FAO’ (n 5) annex; D. Jolly and J. M. Border, ‘U.N. Rejects Export Ban on Atlantic Bluefin Tuna’ New York Times (18 March 2010) http://​www.​nytimes.​com/​2010/​03/​19/​science/​earth/​19species.​html?​_​r=​1&​ accessed 6 July 2015; CITES, ‘CoP15 Com. I Rec. 8 (Rev. 1) – Summary record of the eighth session of Committee I’ (n 95) 2–3.

CITES Secretariat, ‘CoP15 Inf. 45 – Article XIV, paragraphs 4 and 5, of the Convention’ (13–25 March 2010) 3 §19.

See Annex 1 for information on RFMOs’ founding documents’ entry into force and revision of mandate, when any.

FAO, ‘Report of the Expert Consultation on Legal Issues’ (n 4) 10 §50. According to the CITES Secretariat this could have practical implications; for example, once amendments to NAFO’s treaty enter into force, it is to be considered as not any longer in force at the time of CITES entry into force (CITES Secretariat, ‘CoP15 Inf. 45 – Article XIV, paragraphs 4 and 5, of the Convention’ (n 103) 2 §10–12).

Favre, International Trade in Endangered Species (n 13) 306; W. Wijnstekers, The Evolution of CITES (9^th edn CIC – International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation 2011) 454.

Resolution Conf. 4.6 (Rev. CoP16) – Submission of draft resolutions and other documents for meetings of the Conference of the Parties 1983. “A rectification protocol noting editorial mistakes in the authentic treaty texts (inter alia, Arts III, XIV, and XVI CITES) was drawn up in the form of a procès-verbal by the Swiss Government as depositary, communicated to States Parties and signatories on 19 March 1976, and endorsed by the Conference of the Parties (‘COP’), the supreme decision-making body of CITES, at its first meeting” (P. H. Sand, ‘Endangered Species, International Protection’ Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law www.​mpepil.​com §9) (italics and inter-textual references omitted).

CITES Secretariat, ‘CoP15 Inf. 45 – Article XIV, paragraphs 4 and 5, of the Convention’ (n 103) 2–3 §15–16. This is indeed a point reported by the Working Group on IFS (CITES Secretariat, ‘CoP15 Doc. 27 – Interpretation and implementation of the Convention – Trade control and marking – Introduction from the Sea’ (13–25 March 2010) 10 annex 3 §37).

Fisheries Jurisdiction (Spain v. Canada), Judgment on Jurisdiction, 4 December 1998, I.C.J. Reports 1998 432, 461 §70; on this see S. Rosenne, ‘Reflections on Fisheries Management Disputes’ in R. Casado Raigón and G. Cataldi (eds), L’évolution et l’état actuel du droit international de la mer: Mélanges de droit de la mer offerts à Daniel Vignes (Bruylant 2009) 833.

CITES Secretariat, ‘CoP15 Inf. 45 – Article XIV, paragraphs 4 and 5, of the Convention’ (n 103) 3 §16.

See infra Chapter 6 C. IV. 1., D. IV. 1.

J. B. Mus, ‘Conflicts Between Treaties in International Law’ (1998) 45 Netherlands International Law Review 208, 211.

Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of its 18^th Session 4 May 1966, UN Doc A/CN. 4/191 214 commentary on article 26(2); A. Aust, Modern Treaty Law and Practice (Cambridge University Press 2000) 174; C. J. Borgen, ‘Resolving Treaty Conflicts’ (2005) 37 George Washington International Law Review 573, 584.

CITES (n 55) article XIV(2)(3).

Wijnstekers (n 106) 433–438, 441–445; see also FAO, ‘Report of the Expert Consultation on Legal Issues’ (n 4) 10 §49.

Other authors do not explicitly envision the applicability of this paragraph to marine species. For example Franckx, ‘The Relationship between CITES, FAO and Related Agreements: Legal Issues’ (n 60) 47–48; Gillespie, Whaling Diplomacy (n 81) 334–335. For Favre, paragraph 2 refers to laws that “prohibit the importation of certain plants and animals because of concerns over human or animal health, or because of protection against plant pests [and clarifies that] [t]he existence of a CITES permit would not override these laws” (Favre, International Trade in Endangered Species (n 13) 305).

For more on the parallel applicability of CITES and RFMOs, see infra Chapter 5 B. III. 2. c) aa).

CITES (n 55) article XV(2)(b).

Committee on Fisheries – Sub-Committee on Fish Trade, ‘Report of the Eighth Session of the Sub-Committee on Fish Trade’ (n 52) 7 §18; see also the FAO COFI-led draft where the “primary role of sovereign states, FAO and regional fisheries management organizations in fisheries conservation and management” was recognized and which still included the additional condition of prior agreement by the relevant RFMO (Committee on Fisheries, ‘Report of the Twenty-fifth Session of the Committee on Fisheries (Rome, 24–28 February 2003)’ FAO Fisheries Report 702 (Rome 2003) Appendix G); see Young, Trading Fish, Saving Fish (n 3) 159–162. On the MoU, see infra Chapter 6 A. I. 2.

Japan, ‘CoP12 Doc. 16.2.1 – Synergy and Cooperation between CITES and FAO’ (n 5) annex.

International Environmental Law Project, ‘CITES and Marine Species: An Analysis of the Draft Resolutions on Sharks, Sea Turtles, Toothfish and Whales’ (2002) http://​www.​lclark.​edu/​live/​files/​154 accessed 6 July 2015, 2. Young considers that this could have consisted in an ultra vires act since it would have de facto amended the Convention, without the normal procedure guarantying the respect of states’ sovereignty (Young, Trading Fish, Saving Fish (n 3) 169–172). Indeed, “political organs may adopt in their decision-making processes constitutional interpretations which are highly controversial and regarded as ultra vires the organs concerned by an outvoted minority of the member states” (Birnie (n 100) 326 (reference omitted)).

Resolution Conf. 14.6 (Rev. CoP16) – Introduction from the Sea (n 66) preamble.

Wolfrum and Matz, Conflicts in international environmental law (n 114) 6–13; Matz, Wege zur Koordinierung völkerrechtlicher Verträge (n 115) 8–17.

For a parallel illustration of a narrow understanding of ‘conflict’ in relation to CITES and another biodiversity treaty (the Protocol concerning Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife), see Borgen (n 113) 612.

On this see supra Chapter 4 B. I. 3. a).

Franckx, ‘The Relationship between CITES, FAO and Related Agreements: Legal Issues’ (n 60) 41.

See supra Chapter 5 B. III. 1. c).

M. Fitzmaurice, ‘Treaties’ Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law www.​mpepil.​com §110. Also, the test of ‘sameness’ is not without controversy. On the one hand indeed, Aust (n 113) 183; J. Pauwelyn, Conflict of Norms in Public International Law: How WTO Law Relates to other Rules of International Law (Cambridge Studies in International and Comparative Law, Cambridge University Press 2003) 364, presenting Sir Ian Sinclair’s views; Wolfrum and Matz argue in favor of a strict interpretation of ‘relating to the same subject matter’ as it would otherwise be a catch-all phrase with, for example the priority between a human rights and trade treaties to be given through a lex posterior rule (Wolfrum and Matz, Conflicts in international environmental law (n 114) 149–151).On the other hand, Pauwelyn considers that there cannot be a conflict of norms if the treaties are not on the same subject matter (Pauwelyn (n 134) 364–367). It has also been said that “[i]f an attempted simultaneous application of two rules to one set of facts or actions leads to incompatible results it can safely be assumed that the test of sameness is satisfied” (ILC, ‘Fragmentation of international law: difficulties arising from the diversification and expansion of international law’ Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission (finalized by M. Koskenniemi) 13 April 2006, A/CN.4/L.682, 18 §22, quoting E. W. Vierdag, ‘The Time of the ‘Conclusion’ of a Multilateral Treaty: Article 30 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and Related Provisions’ (1988) 59 British Yearbook of International Law 75, 100).

Lieberman (n 91) 6.

Mus (n 112) 220. On various opinions on the question, see for example Borgen (n 113) 611–612; Pauwelyn (n 134) 378–379; I. Sinclair, The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (2^nd edn Manchester University Press 1984) 98; Vierdag (n 134).

A. Lindroos, ‘Addressing Norm Conflicts in a Fragmented Legal System: The Doctrine of Lex Specialis’ (2005) 74 Nordic Journal of International Law 27, 35, 42–43. The ICJ for example refused to disqualify the applicability of human rights in a situation of armed conflict through a blanket application of the lex specialis rule, even when humanitarian law came into play. It indeed stated that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights continued to apply, although interpretation of terms such as ‘arbitrarily deprivation of life’ ought to be interpreted in accordance with the lex specialis, which is here humanitarian law (Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 8 July 1996, I.C.J. Reports 1996 226, 240 §25).

ILC, ‘Fragmentation of international law’ (n 134) 35–36 §58; Klabbers, ‘Beyond the Vienna Convention: Conflicting Treaty Provisions’ (n 138) 199–200; Lindroos (n 141) 43–44, 48; Matz, Wege zur Koordinierung völkerrechtlicher Verträge (n 115) 335; Wolfrum and Matz, Conflicts in international environmental law (n 114) 156.

ILC, ‘Fragmentation of international law’ (n 134) 60–61 §111–112, 62–63 §116–117; Borgen (n 113) 589; Pauwelyn (n 134) 389–391.

Borgen (n 113) 612–613.

Lindroos (n 141) 35, 42.

N. Matz-Lück, ‘Treaties, Conflicts between’ Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law www.​mpepil.​com §19.

Resolution Conf. 16.3 – CITES Strategic Vision: 2008–2020 (n 57) goal 3.

Vincent and others (n 6) 582, see also 583–585.

Resolution Conf. 1.1 – Criteria for the Addition of Species and Other Taxa to Appendices I and II and for the Transfer of Species and Other Taxa from Appendix II to Appendix I 1976 (repealed).

Anonymous, ‘The CITES Fort Lauderdale Criteria: The Uses and Limits of Science in International Conservation Decisionmaking’ (2001) 114 Harvard Law Review 1769, 1776.

Resolution Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP16) – Lauderdale criteria (n 23).

Anonymous, ‘The CITES Fort Lauderdale Criteria: The Uses and Limits of Science in International Conservation Decisionmaking’ (n 153) 1779.

Resolution Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP16) – Lauderdale criteria (n 23) annex 1.

Ibid. annex 5.

Anonymous, ‘The CITES Fort Lauderdale Criteria: The Uses and Limits of Science in International Conservation Decisionmaking’ (n 153) 1780.

Resolution Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP16) – Lauderdale criteria (n 23) annex 2 a B.

Ibid. annex 2 b A-B.

Resolution Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP16) – Lauderdale criteria (n 23) annex 4.

Resolution Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP16) – Lauderdale criteria (n 23) annex 4.

Ibid.

Wiersema, ‘Uncertainty and Markets for Endangered Species under CITES’ (n 45) 249.

Resolution Conf. 16.7 – Non-detriment findings 2013.

CITES Rules of Procedure of the Conference of the Parties, as amended at the 16^th meeting, Bangkok, 2013 rule 22.1.

CITES (n 55) article XV(1)(b).

Rules of Procedure of the Conference of the Parties, as amended at the 16^th meeting, Bangkok, 2013 (n 169) rule 23.1.

Ibid. rule 23.2.

Ibid. rule 26.1.

CITES (n 55) article XV(2).

Ibid. article XV(1) and (2)(b).

Ibid.

Ibid. article XV(3).

FAO, ‘Report of the Technical Consultation on the Suitability of the CITES Criteria for Listing Commercially-exploited Aquatic Species (Rome, 28–30 June 2000)’ FAO Fisheries Report 629 (Rome 2000); FAO, ‘Report of the Second Technical Consultation on the Suitability of the CITES Criteria for Listing Commercially-exploited Aquatic Species (Windhoek, Namibia 22 October 2001)’ FAO Fisheries Report 667 (Rome 2002).

Resolution Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP16) – Lauderdale criteria (n 23) annex 5 footnote.

As opposed to the fear expressed by China that such a reduction would not be taken into account properly by non-fisheries managers (China, ‘CoP12 Inf. 30 – “Sharks” and COP12 – A Case for Caution’ (n 6) 3 §7); Vincent and others (n 6) 580.

Resolution Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP16) – Lauderdale criteria (n 23) annex 5.

D. S. Butterworth, ‘Possible interpretation problems for the current CITES listing criteria in the context of marine fish species under commercial harvest’ (2000) 42 Population Ecology 29, 31.

“[E]xtinction is usually defined as the total disappearance of a species from the face of the earth and an absence of sightings for a period of at least five decades” (M. A. Du Plessis, ‘CITES and the Causes of Extinction’ in J. Hutton and B. Dickson (eds), Endangered Species-Threatened Convention: The Past, Present and Future of CITES (Earthscan 2000) 14). For example, China reiterated, in the case of porbeagle shark and spiny dogfish, that “[t]he survival of neither species is threatened by harvest or trade, despite excessive fishing and reported population declines. Commercial extinction is the problem, not biological extinction. CITES focus should be to prevent international trade threatening survival, not optimising management to sustain commercial fisheries and profits from trade” (China, ‘CoP14 Inf. 45 – Shark Issues’ (n 3) 2 §1(a) (italics in the original text)).

China, ‘CoP12 Inf. 30 – “Sharks” and COP12 – A Case for Caution’ (n 6) 3 §7.

P. A. Larkin, ‘Concepts and issues in marine ecosystem management’ (1996) 6 Reviews of Fish Biology and Fisheries 139, 148.

N. K. Dulvy, Y. Sadovy and J. D. Reynolds, ‘Extinction vulnerability in marine populations’ (2003) 4 Fish and Fisheries 25, 44–45; Du Plessis (n 183) 15; C. Huxley, ‘CITES: The Vision’ in J. Hutton and B. Dickson (eds), Endangered Species-Threatened Convention: The Past, Present and Future of CITES (Earthscan 2000) 4–5; World Ocean Review, The Future of Fish – The Fisheries of the Future 2013 (n 184) 24–25.

Dulvy, Sadovy and Reynolds (n 187) 45.

Vincent and others (n 6) 579 (references omitted).

As is the case for all species (Sand, ‘Endangered Species, International Protection’ (n 107) §2).

Resolution Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP16) – Lauderdale criteria (n 23) annex 3.

This has been acknowledged early on, see for example: FAO, ‘Report of the Expert Consultation on Implementation Issues Associated with Listing Commercially-exploited Aquatic Species on CITES Appendices (Rome, 25–28 May 2004)’ FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Report 741 (Rome 2004) 11 §59–61; FAO, ‘Report of the Expert Consultation on Legal Issues’ (n 4) 9–10 §44–46.

FAO, ‘Report of the Expert Consultation on Implementation Issues’ (n 193) 11 §59.

Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP16) – Conservation of and trade in sturgeons and paddlefish (n 84).

CITES (n 55) article (II)(2)(b).

FAO, ‘Report of the Expert Consultation on Implementation Issues’ (n 193) 8 §43. In the case of sturgeons or seahorses for example, the listing of a number of endangered species has led to the listing of all species.

Ibid. 9 §49.

Calley (n 76) 188.

FAO, ‘Report of the Expert Consultation on Legal Issues’ (n 4) 9 §43.

See infra Chapter 6 B. II. 2.

FAO, ‘An Appraisal of the Suitability of the CITES Criteria for Listing Commercially-exploited Aquatic Species’ FAO Fisheries Circular 954 (Rome 2000) 33–35 §4.2; FAO, ‘Report of the Expert Consultation on Legal Issues’ (n 4) 9 §45.

FAO, ‘An Appraisal of the Suitability of the CITES Criteria for Listing Commercially-exploited Aquatic Species’ (n 203) 33–35 §4.2.

FAO, ‘Report of the Expert Consultation on Legal Issues’ (n 4) 9 §45. See infra Chapter 6 B. II. 3.

Resolution Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP16) – Lauderdale criteria (n 23) annex 1.

Ibid. annex 5.

Butterworth (n 182) 30–31; CCAMLR, ‘CoP12 Inf. 20 – Proposal from Australia (CoP12 Prop. 39)’ (3–15 November 2002) 5 §10.11 (Norway).

Resolution Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP16) – Lauderdale criteria (n 23) annex 3.

Ibid.

FAO, ‘Report of the Expert Consultation on Legal Issues’ (n 4) 9–10 §46.

Monaco, ‘CoP15 Doc. 52 (Rev. 1) – Species Trade and Conservation, Atlantic Bluefin Tuna, Draft Resolution of the Conference of the Parties’ (13–25 March 2010) preamble.

Monaco, ‘CoP15 Prop. 19 – Proposal to include Atlantic Bluefin Tuna’ (n 93) summary 3 §17; Monaco, ‘CoP15 Doc. 52 (Rev. 1) – Species Trade and Conservation, Atlantic Bluefin Tuna, Draft Resolution of the Conference of the Parties’ (n 212) operative part.

FAO, ‘CoP15 Inf. 26 – Statement from the FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department on CoP15 Proposal 19 to List the Atlantic Bluefin Tuna in Appendix I’ (n 97) annex §11.

‘Constitution of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations’ 1945 preamble; FAO, ‘CoP15 Inf. 26 – Statement from the FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department on CoP15 Proposal 19 to List the Atlantic Bluefin Tuna in Appendix I’ (n 97) annex §10.

FAO, ‘Report of the Second Meeting of FAO and non-FAO regional fishery bodies or arrangements (Rome, 20–21 February 2001)’ FAO Fisheries Report 645 (Rome 2001) 9 §46.

Vincent and others (n 6) 579.

See infra Chapter 6 C. I. 1. b).

Anonymous, ‘The CITES Fort Lauderdale Criteria: The Uses and Limits of Science in International Conservation Decisionmaking’ (n 153) 1783–1784.

Butterworth (n 182) 30.

FAO, ‘Report of the FAO Workshop to Review the Application of CITES Criterion Annex 2 a B to Commercially-exploited Aquatic Species (Rome, 19–21 April 2011)’ FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Report 976 (Rome 2011) 7–8 §24–25.

CCAMLR, ‘CoP12 Inf. 20 – Proposal from Australia (CoP12 Prop. 39)’ (n 208) 6–7 §10.22 (Chile).

Resolution Conf. 14.6 (Rev. CoP16) – Introduction from the Sea (n 66).

For a summary of the relevant national claims to maritime jurisdiction, see the reference table prepared by the United Nations (as at 15 July 2011) http://​www.​un.​org/​Depts/​los/​LEGISLATIONANDTR​EATIES/​PDFFILES/​table_​summary_​of_​claims.​pdf accessed 10 July 2015.

Ibid. article 57.

Ibid. article 56(1)(a).

This means “organisms which, at the harvestable stage, either are immobile on or under the seabed or are unable to move except in constant physical contact with the seabed or the subsoil” (UNCLOS (n 226) article 77(4)).

Ibid. article 76(1).

A. Willock, ‘Uncharted Waters/Implementation Issues and Potential Benefits of Listing Toothfish in Appendix II of CITES’ (TRAFFIC 2002) 20.

As opposed to ex nunc (Matz, Wege zur Koordinierung völkerrechtlicher Verträge (n 115) 299; E. Franckx, ‘Applications of the term “Introduction from the sea”’ http://​www.​cites.​org/​eng/​news/​meetings/​ifs-05/​term_​IFS.​pdf accessed 6 July 2015, 14, 26; on inter-temporal law and interpretation, see supra Chapter 3 D. I. 2. b).It was discussed whether the conflict clauses in CITES stating that “[n]othing in the present Convention shall prejudice the codification and development of the law of the sea […] nor the present or future claims and legal views of any State concerning the law of the sea and the nature and extent of coastal and flag State jurisdiction” (CITES (n 55) article XIV(6)) provided any guidance as to the preferred interpretation rules. A careful reading and the context of the time point to the fact that the provision was meant to have no real effect beyond the political one of acknowledging the current negotiations of UNCLOS (Franckx, ‘The Relationship between CITES, FAO and Related Agreements: Legal Issues’ (n 60) 29–35) and was copied from the 1972 London Dumping Convention (CITES Secretariat, ‘CoP15 Inf. 45 – Article XIV, paragraphs 4 and 5, of the Convention’ (n 103) 1 §4).

Wold and Thorson (n 56) 13. Declaring an exclusive fishery zone is similar to an EEZ but for the management of living resources only (UNCLOS (n 226) part V; G. Andreone and G. Cataldi, ‘Regards sur les évolutions du droit de la mer en Méditerranée’ (2010) 66 Annuaire français de droit international 1, 8; J. B. Ingerowski, Exclusive Fishery Zones (EFZ): Legal Concept & State Practice (MV Wissenschaft 2009) 183–186). Indeed, according to Nandan, Rosenne and Grandy, “the rights and duties of States that enacted exclusive fishing zone legislation correspond to the applicable rights and duties set out in Part V [of UNCLOS] with regard to exploring and exploiting, and conserving and managing, living natural resources of the waters in question” (The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: A Commentary: Volume II (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1993) 510 §33) (reference omitted).

UNCLOS (n 226) article 75. In case of opposite or adjacent coasts, the process described in article 74 must be followed.

C. Chevalier, ‘Governance in the Mediterranean Sea – Legal Regime and Prospectives’, IUCN Centre for Mediterranean Cooperation http://​cmsdata.​iucn.​org/​downloads/​legalspects_​en_​1.​pdf accessed 6 July 2015, 14; Andreone and Cataldi (n 233) 4–6.

IUCN, ‘Governance of the Mediterranean Sea’ http://​www.​iucn.​org/​about/​union/​secretariat/​offices/​iucnmed/​iucn_​med_​programme/​marine_​programme/​governance/​ accessed 6 July 2015.

Andreone and Cataldi (n 233) 10–11.

Even though the definition of sedentary species is not without controversy, particularly with regard to the extent to which the species must be in contact with the seabed, this debate is not relevant for fish species, but can cause problems for lobsters, crabs, etc. (C. Kojima, ‘Fisheries, Sedentary’ Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law www.​mpepil.​com §2–3).

UNCLOS (n 226) article 76(8). As of 3 June 2015, the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) had only made recommendations in 22 cases of the 77 submitted to it (Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, ‘Submissions, through the Secretary-General of the United Nations, to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, pursuant to article 76, paragraph 8, of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982’ (3 June 2015) http://​www.​un.​org/​Depts/​los/​clcs_​new/​commission_​submissions.​htm accessed 6 July 2015), and many states have not even made any submissions yet. Submitting a proposal to the CLCS if their continental shelf continues further than 200 nm would thus be the logical move forward – of course not only in relation to the CITES regime.

Franckx, ‘Applications of the term “Introduction from the sea”’ (n 232) 12.

Birnie (n 100) 329.

VCLT (n 139) article 31(1); see for example Aust (n 113) 187–188.

Franckx, ‘The Exercise of Jurisdiction over Vessels: Legal Issues Raised by the Relationship Between CITES, FAO and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea’ (n 61) 73.

Franckx, ‘The Relationship between CITES, FAO and Related Agreements: Legal Issues’ (n 60) 23.

CITES Secretariat, ‘CoP15 Doc. 27 – Interpretation and implementation of the Convention – Trade control and marking – Introduction from the Sea’ (n 108) 8–9 annex 3 §22.

E. Franckx, ‘Applications of the term “Introduction from the sea”’ (n 232) 13; F. Meere and others, ‘CITES ‘Introduction from the sea’ – A practical way forward: Proceedings of a joint workshop’ (2008) 3–4.

Meere and others (n 252) 4.

Ibid. 2–4.

Ibid. 3.

Wold and Thorson (n 56) 12.

CITES Secretariat, ‘CoP15 Doc. 27 – Interpretation and implementation of the Convention – Trade control and marking – Introduction from the Sea’ (n 108) 8 annex 3 §20.

Meere and others (n 252) 4.

Ibid.

VCLT (n 139) article 31(2)–(3); on this, see for example Aust (n 113) 188–195.

CITES (n 55) article XIV(5).

Franckx, ‘The Relationship between CITES, FAO and Related Agreements: Legal Issues’ (n 60) 24.

Ibid. 21–22.

For countries’ opinions, see CITES, ‘CoP15 Com. II Rec. 13 (Rev. 1) – Summary record of the thirteenth session of Committee II’ (13–25 March 2010) 1 §27: most of Latin America for example believed that the port state should be the state of introduction, while the European Union was of the opposite opinion.FAO, ‘Report of the Expert Consultation on Legal Issues’ (n 4) 3–4 §18; Franckx, ‘Applications of the term “Introduction from the sea”’ (n 232) 12–14; International Environmental Law Project, ‘Understanding Introduction from the Sea’ (2010) http://​www.​lclark.​edu/​live/​files/​4356 accessed 6 July 2015. Also, on the practical consequences of either case with regard to permit issuance, see Meere and others (n 252).

Committee on Fisheries – Sub-Committee on Fish Trade, ‘Update on CITES related activities’ presented at the Thirteenth Session of the Sub-Committee on Fish Trade (Hyderabad, 20–24 February 2012) COFI:FT/XIII/2012/8 (2012) 3 §10.

CITES Secretariat (on behalf of the Standing Working Group on Introduction from the Sea), ‘SC61 Doc. 32 – Introduction from the sea’ (15 August 2011) annex 1 §7, 11.

CITES Secretariat, ‘CoP15 Doc. 27 – Interpretation and implementation of the Convention – Trade control and marking – Introduction from the Sea’ (n 108) 7 annex 3 §8.

CITES Secretariat ‘SC61 Doc. 32 – Introduction from the sea’ (n 266) annex 1 §17–19.

E. J. Molenaar, ‘Participation, Allocation and Unregulated Fishing: The Practice of Regional Fisheries Management Organisations’ (2003) 18 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 457, 461.

Resolution Conf. 14.6 (Rev. CoP16) – Introduction from the Sea (n 66).

CITES Secretariat ‘SC61 Doc. 32 – Introduction from the sea’ (n 266) annex 1 §13.

China, ‘CoP14 Inf. 45 – Shark Issues’ (n 3) 3 §1(e).

CITES Secretariat ‘SC61 Doc. 32 – Introduction from the sea’ (n 266) annex.

Resolution Conf. 14.6 (Rev. CoP16) – Introduction from the Sea (n 66) preamble.

Ireland (on behalf of the European Union), ‘CoP16 Inf. 31 – European Union position on Introduction from the Sea Document CoP16 Doc. 32’ (3–14 March 2013).

CITES, ‘Decisions 16.48–16.51 – Introduction from the sea: chartering’ (2013).

Franckx, ‘Applications of the term “Introduction from the sea”’ (n 232) 12.

Ibid. 14.

CITES (n 55) respectively articles III(5) and IV(6).

Resolution Conf. 14.7 (Rev. CoP15) – Management of nationally established export quotas 2007; CITES, ‘CoP11 Inf. 11.3 – Scientific Authorities’ Checklist to assist in making Non-detriment Findings for Appendix II Exports’ (10–20 April 2000) 13; Resolution Conf. 16.7 – Non-detriment findings (n 168) preamble; L. Little and M. A. Orellana, ‘Can CITES Play a Role in Solving the Problem of IUU Fishing?: The Trouble with Patagonian Toothfish’ (2005) 16 Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy 21, 70–71; M. Yeater and J. Vasquez, ‘Demystifying the Relationship Between CITES and the WTO’ (2001) 10 RECIEL 271, 273–274.

Willock, ‘Uncharted Waters/Implementation Issues and Potential Benefits of Listing Toothfish in Appendix II of CITES’ (n 231) 22.

Resolution Conf. 14.7 (Rev. CoP15) – Management of nationally established export quotas (n 280) annex §4; E. Thorson, ‘IELP White Paper on Export Quotas and Non-Detriment Findings’ (2006) 1; Wijnstekers (n 106) 511.

C. Fuchs, ‘Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) – Conservation Efforts Undermine the Legality Principle’ (2008) 9 German Law Journal 1565, 1588; J. B. Murphy, ‘Alternative Approaches to the CITES ‘Non-detrimental’ Finding for Appendix II Species’ (2006) 36 Environmental Law 531, 540; C. Raymakers, ‘International Trade in Sturgeon and Paddlefish Species – the Effect of CITES listing’ (2002) 87 International Review of Hydrobiology 525, 533.

Raymakers, ‘International Trade in Sturgeon and Paddlefish Species – the Effect of CITES listing’ (n 283) 533.

Resolution Conf. 14.7 (Rev. CoP15) – Management of nationally established export quotas (n 280) annex §6.

Ibid. annex §10.

Resolution Conf. 16.7 – Non-detriment findings (n 168).

S. Aguilar, ‘Regulatory Tools for the Management of Fish and Timber Species through CITES’ (2013) 22 RECIEL 281, 283–284.

Fuchs (n 283) 1583.

For the African elephant, African spurred tortoise (in the Appendices); for the leopard (Resolution Conf. 10.14 (Rev. CoP16) – Quotas for leopard hunting trophies and skins for personal use 1997); for the markhor (Resolution Conf. 10.15 (Rev. CoP14) – Establishment of quotas for markhor hunting trophies 1997); for the black rhinoceros (Resolution Conf. 13.5 (Rev. CoP14) – Establishment of export quotas for black rhinoceros hunting trophies 2004). In general on quotas for species in Appendix I, see Resolution Conf. 9.21 (Rev. CoP13) – The interpretation and application of quotas for species included in Appendix I 1994; Yeater and Vasquez (n 280) 274.

Resolution Conf. 12.3 (Rev. CoP16) – Permits and certificates 2002 part VIII Regarding permits and certificates for species subject to quotas.

Resolution Conf. 11.3 (Rev. CoP16) – Compliance and enforcement 2000.

On Significant Trade Review, see supra Chapter 3 C. I. 2. g).

Resolution Conf. 12.8 (Rev. CoP13) – Review of Significant Trade in specimens of Appendix-II species (n 83).

In areas of the high seas that are not regulated, it might be more complex at the beginning, with all states involved in the harvesting needing to gather data and agree on TACs – resulting de facto in the actions taken by states within an RFMO.

CITES (n 55) article IV(7).

Murphy, ‘Alternative Approaches to the CITES ‘Non-detrimental’ Finding for Appendix II Species’ (n 283) 549.

A. Willock, ‘Administrative and Monitoring Implications of listing and down-listing of commercially-exploited aquatic species, including the implications of Annex 4 of Resolution Conf. 9.24’ Background paper to CITES Workshop on Introduction from the Sea Issues, 30 November – 2 December 2005, Geneva (Switzerland), http://​www.​cites.​org/​eng/​news/​meetings/​ifs-05/​IFS05-TRAFFIC-paper.​pdf accessed 4 July 2015, 8, 12.

Willock, ‘Uncharted Waters/Implementation Issues and Potential Benefits of Listing Toothfish in Appendix II of CITES’ (n 231) 9–10, 24.

Little and Orellana (n 280) 77.

Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP16) – Conservation of and trade in sturgeons and paddlefish (n 84); C. Raymakers, ‘CITES, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora: its role in the conservation of Acipenseriformes’ (2006) 22 Journal of Applied Ichthyology 53, 60.

Resolution Conf. 14.7 (Rev. CoP15) – Management of nationally established export quotas (n 280) annex §4; CITES, ‘CoP15 Doc. 16.2.2 – Capacity Building – International expert workshop on non-detriment Findings – Report of the Animals and Plants Committees’ (13–25 March 2010) 8 §13–14.

Du Plessis (n 183) 23.

U. R. Sumaila, J. Adler and H. Keith, ‘Global scope and economics of illegal fishing’ (2006) 30 Marine Policy 696, 697–698.

China, ‘CoP14 Inf. 45 – Shark Issues’ (n 3) 2 §1(d); on the export ban, see Willock, ‘Administrative and Monitoring Implications of listing’ (n 299) 12.

In general terms, between 35 and 40 % of fish and fishery products enter international trade (FAO, ‘The State of the World Fisheries and Aquaculture’ (Rome 2010) 48; FAO, ‘The State of the World Fisheries and Aquaculture’ (Rome 2012) 67; FAO, ‘The State of the World Fisheries and Aquaculture’ (Rome 2014) 47) but can also be a lot higher for species such as Bluefin Tuna.

Willock, ‘Uncharted Waters/Implementation Issues and Potential Benefits of Listing Toothfish in Appendix II of CITES’ (n 231) 24.

Wijnstekers (n 106) 122.

Willock, ‘Administrative and Monitoring Implications of listing’ (n 299) 12.

UNCLOS (n 226) articles 63–64, 118.

FAO, ‘Report of the Third FAO Expert Advisory Panel for the Assessment of Proposals to Amend Appendices I and II of CITES Concerning Commercially-exploited Aquatic Species (Rome, 7–12 December 2009)’ FAO Fisheries Report 925 (Rome 2010) 126; FAO, ‘Report of the Fourth FAO Expert Advisory Panel for the Assessment of Proposals to Amend Appendices I and II of CITES Concerning Commercially-exploited Aquatic Species (Rome, 3–8 December 2012)’ FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Report R1032 (Rome 2013) 17.

CITES, ‘Resources for implementation: Legality’ http://​cites.​org/​eng/​prog/​shark/​legality.​php accessed 6 July 2015, (italics added).

CITES, ‘Regional fisheries management organization measures for shark conservation and management (draft as at March 2014)’ (March 2014) http://​cites.​org/​sites/​default/​files/​eng/​prog/​shark/​docs/​shark%20​RFMO%20​measures%20​-%20​draft%20​March%20​2014.​pdf accessed 6 July 2015.

For a discussion on this aspect, see supra Chapter 3 A. II. 3. b).

CITES (n 55) article XIV(1)(a).

FAO, ‘Report of the Expert Consultation on Implementation Issues’ (n 193) 5 §25.

Willock, ‘Uncharted Waters/Implementation Issues and Potential Benefits of Listing Toothfish in Appendix II of CITES’ (n 231) 24; CITES Secretariat, ‘Notification to the parties n°2006/023 – Introduction from the sea’ (6 April 2006) 5.

‘Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein’, Official Journal of the European Union (1996) article 4(1)–(2): species listed in Annexes A and B (approximately Appendices I and II) are subject to an import permit (European Community and TRAFFIC Europe, ‘Reference Guide – European Community Wildlife Trade Regulations’ (2013) http://​ec.​europa.​eu/​environment/​cites/​pdf/​2007_​referenceguide2_​en.​pdf accessed 6 July 2015, 21; Bowman, Davies and Redgwell (n 19) 533; Willock, ‘Administrative and Monitoring Implications of listing’ (n 299) 10). The USA also implements stricter national measures (J. M. Hutton, ‘Who Knows Best? Controversy over Unilateral Stricter Domestic Measures’ in J. Hutton and B. Dickson (eds), Endangered Species-Threatened Convention: The Past, Present and Future of CITES (Earthscan 2000) 63; Yeater and Vasquez (n 280) 273).

Chair of the Standing Committee Working Group on Multilateral Measures, ‘CoP16 Doc. 18 (Rev. 1) – Cooperation between parties and promotion of multilateral measures’ (3–14 March 2013); CITES, ‘Decisions 14.28 (Rev. CoP 15) – 14.29 (Rev. CoP 16) – Cooperation between Parties and promotion of multilateral measures’ (2010–2013) and the annex 1 for the Terms of Reference of the requested consultancy.

Hutton (n 322) 60–62; R. J. McLaughlin, ‘Settling Trade-Related Disputes Over the Protection of Marine Living Resources: UNCLOS or the WTO?’ (1997–1998) 10 Georgetown International Environmental Law Review 29, 95.

See for example Resolution Conf. 14.6 (Rev. CoP16) – Introduction from the Sea (n 66) annex II.1.1.2 or III.1.1.2.

CITES (n 55) article VII.

Ibid. article VII(5); Resolution Conf. 10.16 (Rev) – Specimens of animal species bred in captivity 1997.

J.-F. de Pulvenis Séligny, ‘The marine living resources and the evolving law of the sea’ (2010) 1 Aegean Review of the Law of the Sea and Maritime Law 61, 88–90.

CITES (n 55) article VII(4)–(5).

Favre, International Trade in Endangered Species (n 13) 186–187; R. W. G. Jenkins, ‘An Overview of the Fundamental Principles of CITES as a Mechanism for Regulating Trade in Listed Species’, http://​www.​cites.​org/​eng/​news/​meetings/​ifs-05/​IFS05-principle.​pdf accessed 4 July 2015, 9.

Resolution Conf. 10.16 (Rev) – Specimens of animal species bred in captivity (n 330).

Wijnstekers (n 106) 494.

CITES (n 55) article VII(5).

Ibid. article VII(4).

Resolution Conf. 10.16 (Rev) – Specimens of animal species bred in captivity (n 330) fourth preambular; Resolution Conf. 12.10 (Rev. CoP15) – Registration of operations that breed Appendix-I animal species in captivity for commercial purposes (n 13) sixth preambular.

Wijnstekers (n 106) 491–492.

Resolution Conf. 5.10 (Rev. CoP15) – Definition of ‘primarily commercial purposes’ 1985 annex, e).

Resolution Conf. 10.16 (Rev) – Specimens of animal species bred in captivity (n 330) operative part.

Ibid. third preambular.

Resolution Conf. 12.10 (Rev. CoP15) – Registration of operations that breed Appendix-I animal species in captivity for commercial purposes (n 13).

Ibid. annex 2.

Jenkins, ‘An Overview of the Fundamental Principles of CITES as a Mechanism for Regulating Trade in Listed Species’ (n 333) 9.

Resolution Conf. 10.16 (Rev) – Specimens of animal species bred in captivity (n 330); Resolution Conf. 12.10 (Rev. CoP15) – Registration of operations that breed Appendix-I animal species in captivity for commercial purposes (n 13) f).

Resolution Conf. 10.16 (Rev) – Specimens of animal species bred in captivity (n 330).

Resolution Conf. 12.10 (Rev. CoP15) – Registration of operations that breed Appendix-I animal species in captivity for commercial purposes (n 13) annex 1 §5.

Ibid. preamble, as further developed in Resolution Conf. 5.10 (Rev. CoP15) – Definition of ‘primarily commercial purposes’ (n 341) annex, e).

Jenkins, ‘An Overview of the Fundamental Principles of CITES as a Mechanism for Regulating Trade in Listed Species’ (n 333) 9.

See supra Chapter 2 C. II. 2.

Jenkins, ‘An Overview of the Fundamental Principles of CITES as a Mechanism for Regulating Trade in Listed Species’ (n 333) 9.

Willock, ‘Administrative and Monitoring Implications of listing’ (n 299) 18.

Resolution Conf. 11.16 (Rev. CoP15) – Ranching and trade in ranched specimens of species transferred from Appendix I to Appendix II (n 24) second preambular.

Wijnstekers (n 106) 533–534.

Resolution Conf. 3.15 – Ranching (n 24).

Resolution Conf. 2.12 (Rev) – Specimens Bred in Captivity or Artificially Propagated 1979 (repealed).

Resolution Conf. 11.16 (Rev. CoP15) – Ranching and trade in ranched specimens of species transferred from Appendix I to Appendix II (n 24).

Jenkins, ‘An Overview of the Fundamental Principles of CITES as a Mechanism for Regulating Trade in Listed Species’ (n 333) 10.

R. W. G. Jenkins and others, ‘Review of Crocodile Ranching Programs Conducted for CITES by the Crocodile Specialist Group of IUCN/SSC’ January – April 2004, AC22 Inf. 2 (CITES 2006) 33.

Jenkins and others, ‘Review of Crocodile Ranching Programs Conducted for CITES by the Crocodile Specialist Group of IUCN/SSC’ (n 364) 4, 34.

Ibid. 34.

Resolution Conf. 11.16 (Rev. CoP15) – Ranching and trade in ranched specimens of species transferred from Appendix I to Appendix II (n 24).

Jenkins and others, ‘Review of Crocodile Ranching Programs Conducted for CITES by the Crocodile Specialist Group of IUCN/SSC’ (n 364) 30, 34.

Resolution Conf. 11.16 (Rev. CoP15) – Ranching and trade in ranched specimens of species transferred from Appendix I to Appendix II (n 24): “populations of species included in Appendix I that occur within the jurisdiction of Parties”.

FAO, ‘Report of the Third FAO Expert Advisory Panel for the Assessment of Proposals’ (n 314) 125.

F. Ottolenghi and others, ‘Capture-based aquaculture: The fattening of eels, groupers, tunas and yellowtails’ (FAO 2004) 118–121.

Monaco, ‘CoP15 Prop. 19 – Proposal to include Atlantic Bluefin Tuna’ (n 93) 20 §8.4.

P. J. Mous and others, ‘Capture for culture: artificial shelters for grouper collection in SE Asia’ (2006) 7 Fish and Fisheries 58, 69.

FAO, ‘Aquaculture development – 6. Use of wild fishery resources for capture-based aquaculture’ FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries 5 Suppl. 6 (Rome 2011) 3–4, 11–13, 16–22.

Resolution Conf. 9.20 (Rev) – Guidelines for evaluating marine turtle ranching proposals submitted pursuant to Resolution Conf. 11.6 (Rev. CoP15) 1994 annex §1.

Resolution Conf. 10.16 (Rev) – Specimens of animal species bred in captivity (n 330) sixth preambular.

Hungary (on behalf of the European Union) and United States of America, ‘SC61 Doc. 27 – Implementation of the Convention relating to captive-bred and ranched specimens’ (15 August 2011).

L. Castello and D. J. Stewart, ‘Assessing CITES Non-detriment Findings Procedures for Arapaima in Brazil’ http://​www.​conabio.​gob.​mx/​institucion/​cooperacion_​internacional/​TallerNDF/​Links-Documentos/​WG-CS/​WG8-Fishes/​WG8-CS1%20​Arapaima/​WG8-CS1-S.​pdf accessed 6 July 2015, 2.

CITES, ‘CoP15 Doc. 16.2.2 – Capacity Building – International expert workshop on non-detriment Findings – Report of the Animals and Plants Committees’ (n 303) 7 §8.

Hungary and Unites States of America, ‘SC61 Doc. 27 – Implementation of the Convention relating to captive-bred and ranched specimens’ (n 379) 4.

Resolution Conf. 12.10 (Rev. CoP15) – Registration of operations that breed Appendix-I animal species in captivity for commercial purposes (n 13).

Ibid. annex I §14.

Ibid. j).

Resolution Conf. 11.16 (Rev. CoP15) – Ranching and trade in ranched specimens of species transferred from Appendix I to Appendix II (n 24).

M. Engler and R. Parry-Jones, ‘Opportunity or Threat: The Role of the European Union in Global Wildlife Trade’ (TRAFFIC Europe 2007) 34.

CITES, CITES trade controls to take effect for mahogany (11 November 2003) http://​www.​cites.​org/​eng/​news/​pr/​2003/​031111_​mahogany.​shtml accessed 6 July 2015.

FAO, ‘Report of the Expert Consultation on Implementation Issues’ (n 193) 8–9 §46.

Willock, ‘Administrative and Monitoring Implications of listing’ (n 299) 14.

CITES Secretariat, ‘Caviar criminals’ CITES World – Official Newsletter of the Parties (December 2001) 10.

As is for example still the case for sturgeons (Engler and Parry-Jones (n 387) 34).

Vincent and others (n 6) 583.

E. M. McOmber, ‘Problems in Enforcement of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species’ (2001–2002) 27 Brooklyn Journal of International Law 673, 692–693.

Resolution Conf. 9.6 (Rev. CoP16) – Trade in readily recognizable parts and derivatives 1994.

J. L. Jacquet and D. Pauly, ‘Trade secrets: Renaming and mislabeling of seafood’ (2008) 32 Marine Policy 309.

Some species can be listed in order to ensure an efficient control of the protection for an endangered species (CITES (n 55) article II(2)(b)), particularly in the case of species that cannot be distinguished one from the other.

This look-alike provision is probably not implementable for fish species. Indeed, it would potentially mean listing all fish that supply similar looking filets or many sharks because dried fins cannot be easily distinguished. Such a huge listing is not realistic (Willock, ‘Administrative and Monitoring Implications of listing’ (n 299) 14).

Anonymous, ‘A new CITES identification guide for sturgeons and paddlefish’ CITES World – Official Newsletter of the Parties (December 2001) 15; E. W. T. Cooper and N. Chalifour, ‘CITES, Eh?: The Implementation of CITES in Canada since WAPPRIITA’ (TRAFFIC North America 2004) 61. These booklets are usually developed by CITES, by states or by partner non-governmental organizations (CITES, ‘The CITES Publications’ http://​www.​cites.​org/​eng/​resources/​publications.​php accessed 6 July 2015).

Originally only for export, these requirements have been extended to domestic trade also (Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP16) – Conservation of and trade in sturgeons and paddlefish (n 84); Raymakers, ‘CITES, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora: its role in the conservation of Acipenseriformes’ (n 502) 62).

Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP16) – Conservation of and trade in sturgeons and paddlefish (n 84): “importing Parties [should] not accept shipments of caviar unless they comply with these provisions [the provisions of the universal labelling system]”; A. Knapp, C. Kitschke and S. von Meibom, ‘Proceedings of the International Sturgeon Enforcement Workshop to Combat Illegal Trade in Caviar: Prepared by TRAFFIC Europe for the European Commission’ Brussels 2006, SC54 Inf. 6 (CITES 2006) 10.

M. Barbuto and others, ‘DNA barcoding reveals fraudulent substitutions in shark seafood products: The Italian case of ‘palombo’ (Mustelus spp.)’ (2010) 43 Food Research International 376, 376.

Ibid. 380.

C. Wolf, P. Hübner and J. Lüthy, ‘Differentiation of sturgeon species by PCR-RFLP’ (1999) 32 Food Research International 699, 699–700, 704.

Willock, ‘Administrative and Monitoring Implications of listing’ (n 299) 15.

Monaco, ‘CoP15 Prop. 19 – Proposal to include Atlantic Bluefin Tuna’ (n 93) 21 §9.

Ibid. 3 summary §18.

The FAO already provides training for species such as sharks, queen conch or sea cucumbers (FAO, ‘Capacity building information’ http://​www.​fao.​org/​fishery/​topic/​16350/​en accessed 6 July 2015).

According to the procedure set in CITES (n 55) article VII(5).

Resolution Conf. 10.16 (Rev) – Specimens of animal species bred in captivity (n 330).

J. Grogan and P. Barreto, ‘Big-Leaf Mahogany on CITES Appendix II: Big Challenge, Big Opportunity’ (2005) 19 Conservation Biology 973, 974–975.

For the Appendix I captive-breeding facilities, registration is at the CITES Secretariat (Resolution Conf. 12.10 (Rev. CoP15) – Registration of operations that breed Appendix-I animal species in captivity for commercial purposes (n 13); Jenkins, ‘An Overview of the Fundamental Principles of CITES as a Mechanism for Regulating Trade in Listed Species’ (n 333) 9), whereas registration for the sturgeons is at the national level (Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP16) – Conservation of and trade in sturgeons and paddlefish (n 84)).

Cooper and Chalifour (n 400) 30.

A. Wuertz and others, ‘Identification of caviar from increasing global aquaculture production — Dietary capric acid as a labelling tool for CITES implementation in caviar trade’ (2009) 298 Aquaculture Research 51, 51–55.

Ibid. 51.

S. Clarke, ‘Shark Product Trade in Hong Kong and Mainland China and Implementation of the CITES Shark Listings’ (TRAFFIC East Asia 2004) 40.

U.S. Department of State, ‘Against Wildlife Trafficking: Working Together to End the Illegal Trade in Wildlife, Fact Sheet’ (November 2007) http://​2001-2009.​state.​gov/​r/​pa/​scp/​102487.​htm accessed 6 July 2015.

Bowman, Davies and Redgwell (n 19) 525 (reference omitted).

S. Patel, ‘The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species and the Last Unicorn’ (1995–1996) 18 Houston Journal of International Law 157, 191 (reference omitted).

Bowman, Davies and Redgwell (n 19) 530; CITES (n 55) article VIII(3).

S. Cleva, ‘Enforcement Starts with Wildlife Inspectors’ (2005) 30(2) U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Bulletin 18, 19.

Wijnstekers (n 106) 483.

McOmber (n 395) 698, 701.

Fuchs (n 283) 1589; McOmber (n 395) 701.

Sand, ‘Whither CITES? The Evolution of a Treaty Regime in the Borderland of Trade and Environment’ (n 18) 51.

Fuchs (n 283) 1573.

Cleva (n 423) 18–19; McOmber (n 395) 698.

Clarke, ‘Shark Product Trade in Hong Kong and Mainland China and Implementation of the CITES Shark Listings’ (n 418) 39.

Ibid. 43.

Cleva (n 423) 19.

It is meant to assist both the “the handling and processing of CITES applications [and] the issuance of electronic permits” (CITES, ‘CITES electronic permitting toolkit’ (2010) http://​www.​cites.​org/​common/​cop/​15/​doc/​E15-30-01T.​pdf accessed 6 July 2015, 3, 27).

Willock, ‘Administrative and Monitoring Implications of listing’ (n 299) 15.

CITES Secretariat, ‘Caviar criminals’ (n 392) 10.

Memorandum of Understanding between the General Secretariat of ICPO-Interpol and the CITES Secretariat 1998.

These are the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), the World Bank and World Customs Organization (CITES Secretariat, ICPO-Interpol Secretariat, UNODC, World Bank and WCO Secretariat, Letter of Understanding Establishing the International Consortium on Combating Wildlife Crime 2010).

CITES Secretariat, ‘Caviar criminals’ (n 392) 10.

Cooper and Chalifour (n 400) 49, 52–53.

Cooney and Abensperg-Traun (n 35) 302–307.

FAO, ‘The State of Food Insecurity in the World: Addressing food insecurity in protracted crises’ (Rome 2010) 8.

Ibid.; FAO, ‘The State of the World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2014’ (n 308) 68.

Ibid. 105.

G. Kent, ‘Fisheries, food security, and the poor’ (1997) 22 Food policy 393, 395–396.

Bostock and Walmsley (n 443) 105, 107.

FAO, ‘The State of the World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2012’ (n 308) 10, 41; FAO, ‘The State of the World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2014’ (n 308) 27, 31–32.

F. Asche and F. Khatun, ‘Aquaculture: Issues and Opportunities for Sustainable Production and Trade’ ICTSD Natural Resources, International Trade and Sustainable Development Series Issue Paper 5 (Geneva 2006) 20; Bostock and Walmsley (n 443) 107–108.

Young, ‘Contemporary Issues’ (n 14) 176.

C. Catarci, ‘World Markets and Industry of Selected Commercially Exploited Aquatic Species with an International Conservation Profile’ FAO Fisheries Circular 990 (Rome 2004).

Mulliken (n 49) 57–58.

South Africa for example clearly expressed its concern that listing toothfish would set a precedent and that this type of measures towards sustainable development would have negative socio-economic consequences for the country. Such consequences were deemed unacceptable since they would affect a developing country (CCAMLR, ‘CoP12 Inf. 20 – Proposal from Australia (CoP12 Prop. 39)’ (n 208) 10 §10.42 (South Africa)). Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates and Grenada also argued against the listing of Atlantic Bluefin Tuna in Appendix I, inter alia because it “would affect the livelihoods and food security of Small Island Developing States” (CITES, ‘CoP15 Com. I Rec. 8 (Rev. 1) – Summary record of the eighth session of Committee I’ (n 95) 2).

Bostock and Walmsley (n 443) 105.

See infra Chapter 5 C. II. 3. b) and Chapter 6 D.

See supra Chapter 5 A. I.

McOmber (n 395) 696.

Bostock and Walmsley (n 443) 106; L. Cunningham, ‘Assessing the contribution of aquaculture to food security: a survey of methodologies’ FAO Fisheries Circular 1010 (Rome 2005) 10–14.

Carey (n 8) 1309.

Stoett (n 8) 569.

The difference of treatment between crocodiles (many ranching operations have been allowed) and turtles (none has been) can be noticed, even though their relevant characteristics are similar (ibid.).

Resolution Conf. 11.21 (Rev. CoP16) – Use of annotations in Appendices I and II 2000; Aguilar (n 288) 282–283.

IWC, ‘Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling’ http://​iwc.​int/​aboriginal.​htm#asw accessed 6 July 2015.

B. Dickson, ‘CITES and the livelihoods of the poor’ (2008) 42 Oryx 548, 548, 550–551.

Ibid. 551.

Resolution Conf. 16.6 – CITES and livelihoods 2013; on this see infra Chapter 5 C. II. 3 b).

A. A. Vagelli, ‘The unfortunate journey of Pterapogon kauderni: A remarkable apogonid endangered by the international ornamental fish trade, and its case in CITES’ (2008) 18 SPC Live Reef Fish Information Bulletin 17, 23.

M. B. Sky, ‘Getting on the List: Politics and Procedural Maneuvering in CITES Appendix I and II Decisions for Commercially Exploited Marine and Timber Species’ (2009–2010) 10 Sustainable Development Law and Policy Review 35, 40.

Cooney and Abensperg-Traun (n 35) 302–307.

Such a study has been undertaken by Catarci (n 450) on sturgeons, Caribbean queen conch, sharks and Patagonian toothfish, although it was not linked to any particular proposal.

Cooney and Abensperg-Traun (n 35) 308.

Resolution Conf. 8.3 (Rev. CoP13) – Recognition of the benefits of trade in wildlife (n 26).

Resolution Conf. 16.6 – CITES and livelihoods (n 467).

Ibid.

Ibid.

Cooney and Abensperg-Traun (n 35) 304.

Resolution Conf. 16.6 – CITES and livelihoods (n 467); CITES Secretariat (on behalf of the Working Group On CITES and Livelihoods), ‘CoP16 Inf. 21 – CITES and livelihoods toolkit and guidelines’ (3–14 March 2013).

Resolution Conf. 3.4 – Technical cooperation 1981.

Resolution Conf. 16.7 – Non-detriment findings (n 168).

Willock, ‘Administrative and Monitoring Implications of listing’ (n 299) 9.

As can already be the case with sanitary and phytosanitary measures as well as technical barriers to trade (Asche and Khatun (n 448) 22–24).

Monaco, ‘CoP15 Prop. 19 – Proposal to include Atlantic Bluefin Tuna’ (n 93) 3 summary §17; Monaco, ‘CoP15 Doc. 52 (Rev. 1) – Species Trade and Conservation, Atlantic Bluefin Tuna, Draft Resolution of the Conference of the Parties’ (n 212) operative part; see supra Chapter 5 C. I. 1. c) aa).

Cooney and Abensperg-Traun (n 35) 304.

P. H. Sand, ‘Commodity or Taboo? International Regulation of Trade in Endangered Species’ (1997) Green Globe Yearbook 19, 26.

Mulliken (n 49) viii, 51–52.

Committee on Fisheries – Sub-Committee on Fish Trade, ‘Update on CITES related activities’ presented at the Fourteenth Session of the Sub-Committee on Fish Trade (Bergen, 24–28 February 2014) COFI:FT/XIV/2014/10 (2014) 5 §17–18.

CITES’ effectiveness is indeed put into question by the scope of illegal trade in wildlife – estimated between five and 10 billion USD per year (Fuchs (n 283) 1588) and by the fact that nearly no listed species has recovered so well that it qualified to be delisted (H. Kievit, ‘Conservation of the Nile Crocodile: Has CITES Helped or Hindered?’ in J. Hutton and B. Dickson (eds), Endangered Species-Threatened Convention: The Past, Present and Future of CITES (Earthscan 2000) 88). Also, the effectiveness of CITES is not accepted unanimously: it is considered rather positively for animals such as crocodiles – one of the success stories of the regime, mostly due to the ranching possibilities (Kievit (n 490) 88–89, 91) – and elephants, but less so for rhinoceros or tigers (E. Neumayer, ‘WTO Rules and Multilateral Environmental Agreements’ in K. P. Gallagher and J. Werksman (eds), The Earthscan Reader on International Trade and Sustainable Development (Earthscan 2002) 142, presenting OECD, ‘Trade Measures in Multilateral Environmental Agreements: Synthesis Report of Three Case Studies’ COM/ENV/TD(98)127/FINAL (Paris 1999); Martin (n 324) 33–34). See also supra Chapter 3 C. I. 3.

Vincent and others (n 6) 574. However, views differ as to whether ICCAT has adopted scientifically-recommended quotas in 2014 (European Commission – Press release, ‘The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT) 2014: Sustainable increase for Bluefin tuna quota supported by science’ 17 November 2014 http://​europa.​eu/​rapid/​press-release_​IP-14-1886_​en.​htm accessed 6 July 2015; The Pew Charitable Trusts, ‘ICCAT Ignores Science and Increases Quota for Atlantic Bluefin Tuna’ 20 November 2014 http://​www.​pewtrusts.​org/​en/​about/​news-room/​news/​2014/​11/​20/​iccat-ignores-science-and-increases-quota-for-atlantic-bluefin-tuna accessed 6 July 2015).

It appears that trade in sturgeon is better monitored and controlled since the relevant species were listed under CITES (Raymakers, ‘International Trade in Sturgeon and Paddlefish Species – the Effect of CITES listing’ (n 283) 530, 532).

FAO, ‘CoP15 Inf. 26 – Statement from the FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department on CoP15 Proposal 19 to List the Atlantic Bluefin Tuna in Appendix I’ (n 97) annex §9.

China, ‘CoP14 Inf. 45 – Shark Issues’ (n 3) 3 §2.

C. T. Bright, ‘The Future of the International Whaling Commission: Can We Save the Whales?’ (1992–1993) 5 Georgetown International Environmental Law Review 815, 841.

Carey (n 8) 1307–1308; R. Cooney and P. Jepson, ‘The international wild bird trade: what’s wrong with blanket bans?’ (2006) 40 Oryx 18, 19.

Neumayer (n 490) 142 (reference omitted).

Cooney and Jepson (n 497) 21–22.

Ibid. 20.

M. Bowman, ‘Transcending the Fisheries Paradigm: Towards a Rational Approach to Determining the Future of the International Whaling Commission’ (2009) 7 New Zealand Yearbook of International Law 85, 119.

Dansky (n 39) 970; Du Plessis (n 183) 16–17.

China, ‘CoP14 Inf. 45 – Shark Issues’ (n 3) 2 §1(d).

P. Christie, E. G. Oracio and L. Eisma-Osorio, ‘Impacts of the CITES listing of seahorses on the status of the species and on human well-being in the Philippines: a case study’ FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular 1058 (Rome 2011).

Jenkins, ‘An Overview of the Fundamental Principles of CITES as a Mechanism for Regulating Trade in Listed Species’ (n 333) 9.

Calley (n 76) 163.

Ibid. 203–204.

M. Lack, ‘Catching On?: Trade-related Measures as a Fisheries Management Tool’ (TRAFFIC International 2007) 11–12; Willock, ‘Uncharted Waters/Implementation Issues and Potential Benefits of Listing Toothfish in Appendix II of CITES’ (n 231) 18.

M. Haward, ‘IUU Fishing: Contemporary Practice’ in A. G. Oude Elferink and D. R. Rothwell (eds), Oceans Management in the 21 ^st Century: Institutional Frameworks and Responses (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2004) 102; Australia, ‘CoP12 Prop. 12.39 – Consideration of proposals for amendment of Appendices I and II – Patagonian Toothfish’ (3–15 November 2002) 2 §6–7.

Bright (n 496) 841 (reference omitted).

Birnie, Boyle and Redgwell (n 39) 689–690.

CITES Secretariat, ‘CoP16 Doc. 13 – Cooperation with Organizations and Multilateral Environmental Agreements’ (3–14 March 2013); see infra Chapter 6.

Little and Orellana (n 280) 118.

FAO, ‘Report of the Expert Consultation on Legal Issues’ (n 4) 7 §31–33; Jenkins, ‘An Overview of the Fundamental Principles of CITES as a Mechanism for Regulating Trade in Listed Species’ (n 333) 8.

FAO, ‘Report of the Expert Consultation on Legal Issues’ (n 4) 9 §43.

However, it is worth noting that the arguments of both preservationists and conservationists refer to the respect or disrespect of science. For example, on the one hand, the states that wanted to allow trade in ivory complained of cultural imperialism of western states using unscientific criteria. On the other hand, “environmentalists argued that the failure to list species such as the Atlantic Bluefin tuna and the Brazilian mahogany resulted from powerful economic interests overruling sound science” (Fuchs (n 283) 1577).

Sky (n 469) 35.

S. Beslier, ‘Pêche et biodiversité marine: complémentarité ou concurrence au sein de l’ordre juridique international? Le cas du thon rouge’ (Paris November 2010) Idées pour le débat n°9, 5–6.

Eldridge (n 20) 561–562.

See supra Chapter 3 C. I. 2. a) and 3.

California Environmental Associates, ‘Charting a Course to Sustainable Fisheries’ (16 January 2012) http://​www.​chartingacourse.​org/​downloads/​ accessed 4 July 2015, 57.

CCAMLR for example pointed out that, in 2012, all states which may be involved in the harvest and/or trade of toothfish but are not cooperating with the CDS are parties to CITES (CCAMLR, ‘CoP16 Doc. 63 (Rev.1) – Toothfish: Report of CCAMLR’ (3–14 March 2013) 2 §7 and ‘Comments from the Secretariat’ B.).

For a negative view on the question, see Beslier, ‘Pêche et biodiversité marine: complémentarité ou concurrence au sein de l’ordre juridique international? Le cas du thon rouge’ (n 519) 7.

A. Batchelor, ‘The preservation of wildlife habitat in ecosystems: towards a new direction under international law to prevent species’ extinction’ (1987–1988) 3 Florida International Law Journal 307, 331.

Franckx, ‘The Exercise of Jurisdiction over Vessels: Legal Issues Raised by the Relationship Between CITES, FAO and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea’ (n 61) 66.

R. Rayfuse, ‘Building sustainable high seas fisheries through certification processes: issues and perspectives’ (2009) 35 Océanis 93, 99.

Lack, ‘Catching On?’ (n 509) 9.

Engler and Parry-Jones (n 387) 12; Sand, ‘Whither CITES? The Evolution of a Treaty Regime in the Borderland of Trade and Environment’ (n 18) 55–56. It is however important to note that the movement of Annex A species (more or less equivalent to Appendix I species) within the EU is regulated (European Community and TRAFFIC Europe, ‘Reference Guide – European Community Wildlife Trade Regulations’ (n 322) 96).

Engler and Parry-Jones (n 387) 6. This could be quite critical for sharks for example, as the EU is an important actor in relation to these species and has a large consumption of shark meat and of tunas, partly caught in European waters. Internal market trade (i.e. domestic trade) would only be little influenced by a listing and a small, if any, decrease in demand would hence be witnessed (S. V. Fordham, ‘Shark alert: Revealing Europe’s impact on shark populations’ (August 2006) 5; Wijnstekers (n 106) 731–732).

CITES (n 55) article IX.

Birnie, Boyle and Redgwell (n 39) 685–687; Bowman, Davies and Redgwell (n 19) 485, 533.

V. Koester, ‘Compliance Committees within MEAs and the Desirability and Feasibility of Establishing Special Compliance Bodies under CITES’ 20 May 2004, SC54 Inf. 3 (CITES 2006).

Jenkins, ‘The Significant Trade Process: Making Appendix II Work’ (n 325) 53–54; Neumayer (n 490) 142; P. H. Sand, ‘Le rôle des “conférences des parties” aux conventions internationales’ (Le droit international face aux enjeux environnementaux, Aix-en-Provence, 4–6 June 2009) 108; CITES, ‘Countries currently subject to a recommendation to suspend trade’ last update on 19 March 2015 http://​www.​cites.​org/​eng/​resources/​ref/​suspend.​php accessed 6 July 2015.

Reeve, ‘The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)’ (n 488) 153.

Birnie, Boyle and Redgwell (n 39) 685.

Reeve, ‘The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)’ (n 488) 149.

Resolution Conf. 14.3 – CITES compliance procedures 2007 in particular §20, 21, 27.